1 Introduction

Entrepreneurial opportunity is a central construct in entrepreneurship research (Auerswald & Dani, 2022; McMullen et al., 2007; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), yet the construct has proven elusive (Dimov, 2011) and created a fair bit of (linguistic) confusion (Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022). The tensions between Discovery (i.e., opportunities exist independently of entrepreneurs) and Creation views (i.e., entrepreneurs create opportunities) have escalated to full-scale “opportunity wars” (Ramoglou & Gartner, 2023; Wright & Phan, 2020). Among the warring factions, we find proponents the Discovery view (Barach & Rider, 2023; Casson & Wadeson, 2007; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000); the Creation view (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Berglund et al., 2020; McBride & Wuebker, 2022); those who believe that some opportunities are discovered and others created (Hmieleski et al., 2015; Venkataraman et al., 2012); those in favor of dropping the opportunity construct (Davidsson, 2015; Foss & Klein, 2017, 2020); and those who claim that entrepreneurs neither discover, nor create, but rather actualize opportunities (Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022; Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). Thus, the debate (or even war!) is ongoing, and we have recently seen several important contributions (or salvoes) that inform the debate (or move the battle lines, such as Alvarez & Barney, 2020; McMullen et al., 2023; Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022).

In a recent contribution to the debate, Ramoglou and McMullen (2022) contend that, rather than researchers debating what opportunities are, we should look to how entrepreneurs use the term “opportunity.” Doing so, they find that opportunity is at its core a “nuanced possibility concept.” To say that there is an opportunity for “A” means that one believes that the environmental conditions (C) for the desired state (A) given action (B) exist. The totality of these conditions can never be known (Ramoglou, 2021a), and therefore, they argue, it makes little sense to say that someone discovered an opportunity (Ramoglou and McMullen (2022). They also believe that it makes little sense to say that entrepreneurs have created all the conditions for their own actions (Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022).

In this article, we build on the idea that entrepreneurial opportunity is a nuanced possibility concept. We do this by drawing on quantum theory as a new perspective to understand opportunity (Hahn & Knight, 2021; Li, 2021; Lord et al., 2015), as called for by Ramoglou and McMullen’s (2022). The Quantum view contends that the world is innately probabilistic and is instantiated by the actions of measurement or characterization. Hence, on the one hand, it is consistent with the discovery view that opportunity exists in latent states irrespective of entrepreneurs; on the other hand, it is consistent with the creation view that opportunities are realized through selective actions, that is, enactment. Such a view offers a new perspective that accounts for the dual nature of opportunity and hence reconciles how both discovery and creation views mutually account for opportunity ontologically and epistemologically.

In this article, we explore quantum theory metaphorically. The strength of metaphors lies in their ability to quickly convey meaning and to generate new ways of seeing (Morgan, 2006). Useful metaphors, through a creative comparison between source and target domains, help us discover relationships that otherwise would not have been apparent, but all metaphors have limits and break down at some point (Cornelissen, 2005; Lundmark & Westelius, 2014; Morgan, 2006). Thus, similar to Hahn and Knight (2021), we do not claim that there is a one-to-one correspondence between social systems, such as entrepreneurial opportunities, and quantum mechanics. Rather, we derive ontological and epistemological insights through exploring the metaphor.Footnote 1 Thus, the purpose is to be thought provoking and to bring the debate forward by moving beyond the established views rather than to settle the debate. The premise of the article is that, while opportunities are not things that we can point to (Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022), how we think about them matters. Like for organizations (Morgan, 2006) and entrepreneurship (Lundmark et al., 2019), we are better served by a multitude of understandings of entrepreneurial opportunity than “the one right ontology” (and it is also probably the best that one can hope for, Alvarez & Barney, 2020).

This article makes several important contributions. First, it makes the case that how one thinks about opportunities matters beyond petty linguistic confusions. We argue that the way one thinks about opportunities has practical implications, both for scholars and entrepreneurs. This is important because some (cf., Kirzner, 2009) have claimed that beliefs about opportunities do not matter practically. Second, it contributes to the ongoing and heated debate (war) about the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity by providing a new perspective that moves beyond the established views. The Quantum view introduces the concept of opportunities as objective, probabilistic, and indeterminate potentialities realized through distinct entrepreneurial actions. The Quantum view thus helps us build on the strengths of the Discovery and Creation views by reconciling them together in a single framework to advance the current debate by offering a new way of thinking about opportunity. Third, the Quantum view suggests that the ontology and epistemology of opportunity are intertwined which helps us understand why we cannot fully specify opportunity before instantiation into new economic activity. The Quantum view advocates for a pluralist approach to methodology, so that we can better understand opportunities as both created and discovered as well as the complex interplay between external factors and individual entrepreneurial actions.

The article is structured as follows: First, we review the origins of the opportunity debate (wars) and show how different ways of thinking about opportunity have practical implications. We then briefly review the extreme positions of the debate (war). Thereafter, we explore the Quantum view of opportunity and outline key insights and their research implications. Lastly, we discuss our findings and suggest directions for future research.

2 Discovery and Creation views of opportunity

2.1 The origin and importance of the schism

There are several narratives about the origin of the Discovery-Creation schism (see McMullen et al., 2007 and Ramoglou & Gartner, 2023 for additional background). For economists, the split has been attributed to the difference between Schumpeterian and Kirznerian views of the role of entrepreneurs in the economy (Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1934). Whereas both Schumpeter (1934) and Kirzner (1973) view disequilibria as a prerequisite for entrepreneurial profits, they have been interpreted as disagreeing about the nature of disequilibria (Kirzner, 2009). Whereas Schumpeter (1934) suggested that by recombining resources in new ways, entrepreneurs create the very disequilibria that they exploit, Kirzner (1973) has been interpreted as suggesting that when there are disequilibria (which is always), some alert individuals (entrepreneurs) eventually spot them and exploit them (Korsgaard et al., 2016; Ramoglou, 2021b). Kirzner (2009) has argued that the difference between these views is almost metaphysical and of little practical relevance. Opportunities are possibilities and “one may wish to say that in ‘seeing’ such possibilities, the entrepreneur is in fact creating them — rather than simply grasping that which already exists” (Kirzner, 2009: 150).

Yet, the way we think about phenomena has practical implications (Gartner, 1993). Importantly, how we think about opportunities has implications for how we think about entrepreneurial agency (McMullen et al., 2007). For example, the belief that the exploitation of opportunities is predicated on entrepreneurial alertness can be used to argue that entrepreneurs are special and contribute to economic efficiencies which supports the “finders-keepers ethic” associated with Kirzner’s theorizing (Ramoglou, 2021b: 850). The mutagen view of opportunities (Lundmark & Westelius, 2014) shares Kirzner’s belief that opportunities exist independently of entrepreneurs but argue that “the successful exploitations of opportunities are the result of myopic guesses or chance events rather than opportunity recognition” (p. 588). Thus, they would attribute success much more to luck than foresight or alertness, which has implications for how one thinks about the just rewards for entrepreneurship. Also building on an evolutionary framework, Winter (2016) argued that current opportunities depend on a long succession of knowledge creation and entrepreneurial endeavors (see also Audretsch & Link, 2019). By placing an emphasis on all these circumstances, entrepreneurship appears as “more like picking the fruit than planting the orchard” (Winter, 2016: 29).

If, on the other hand, one believes that opportunities are created by entrepreneurs, the entrepreneurs do not only create the orchard but also the mountain slope upon which it grows (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). If one believes the former, we need entrepreneurs to pick the fruit, but we also need to plant and cultivate orchards with tasty fruits (e.g., investments in knowledge creation). If one believes the latter, our only tool is to generate more entrepreneurs (e.g., incentivize them through tax cuts or support them in incubators). Thus, the way we think about entrepreneurial opportunity shapes our understanding not only of entrepreneurship but society more broadly and this has implications for how we allocate resources (Lundmark & Westelius, 2014; Ramoglou, 2021b).

The importance of how one thinks about entrepreneurial opportunities is not limited to scholars, it has implications also for entrepreneurs. While Ramoglou and McMullen (2022) make a convincing case that we should see opportunities not as things but as a possibility concept and argue that this is the common use meaning of the term, not all entrepreneurs think the same way about opportunities. For example, we have heard statements like “I do not only take chances, I take chances to chances so that I create my own opportunities,” “You never know what is possible in advance, you have to try and see if it is possible,” or “As soon as I had spotted the trend, I knew this would work.” It takes only a little bit of imagination to tie such statements to different beliefs about the nature of opportunities and the entrepreneurs’ relationship to them.

Note that it does not matter if you exchange the word “opportunities” for “possibilities” in the previous sentence (Foss & Klein, 2017). Entrepreneurs have different beliefs about what is possible and whether it is up to them or external conditions (cf. Rotter, 1966). Beliefs about opportunities (what is possible and why), in turn, link to behavioral approaches of entrepreneurs (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Sarasvathy, 2001), such as the extent to which entrepreneurs spend time doing market research, plan, persevere and attribute responsibility for success and failure. Thus, how we think about opportunities matters not only for scholars, but also for policy makers and entrepreneurs. Ultimately, we believe that the opportunity construct is contentious because it is intertwined with how people attribute causes of what happens in the world (Kelley & Michela, 1980).

2.2 A brief review of the Discovery and Creation views of opportunity

In this section, we offer a brief review of the Discovery and Creation views, highlighting the major tensions underpinning the two constructs. We focus on these two views as they serve as two “poles,” to which virtually all contributors (combatants) to the debate (war) refer with. As Davidsson (2023) pointed out, these issues reflect deeper ontological and epistemological differences, further marred by a lack of consistency within and across works of those associated with each of the labels. Based on the characterization of the Discovery and Creation views outlined by Davidsson (2023),Footnote 2 we synthesize previous critiques of each of these views to distil the strengths and weaknesses of each. The characterization is stylized to highlight the tensions underpinning the two constructs rather than the concessions by proponents of each view. Such stylized views, while necessary due to the complexities and required brevity, do not capture all that the proponents say about entrepreneurial opportunity (Davidsson, 2023).

A widely recognized critique of early entrepreneurship research was that it tended to focus on the main actor, the entrepreneur, and downplayed other factors such as environmental constraints and affordances (Gartner, 1989). The implicit assumption was that new economic activity (i.e., entrepreneurship, Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001) comes into existence because entrepreneurs act upon things. Thus, the main research focus was on finding out what is different about people who actualize new economic activity compared to those who do not (Gartner, 1989).

An important implication of the introduction and popularization of the opportunity construct was that it, at least conceptually, shifted the focus from entrepreneurs to the nexus between people and environmental factors (Davidsson, 2015; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Such person-external factors can explain that what is beneficial to an entrepreneur pursuing a particular venture idea may be detrimental to the same entrepreneur in the pursuit of another venture idea. Much entrepreneurship research is premised on the belief that we can (at least with some accuracy) analyze and predict such external factors (Urbano et al., 2019) and thus the opportunity. If so, entrepreneurship becomes a process of analyzing the environment to identify possible entrepreneurial opportunities and then to realize them (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), which has become known as the Discovery view.

The Discovery view posits that “entrepreneurship is a mechanism through which temporal and spatial inefficiencies in an economy are discovered and mitigated” (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000: 219). This sits somewhat uneasily with the foundational assumption that entrepreneurship is about venturing into inherently uncertain environments (Knight, 1921). Shane and Venkataraman (2000) address this by highlighting that decisions are made based on “hunches, intuition, heuristics, and accurate and inaccurate information” (p. 221) rather than “mechanical calculations in response to a given a set of alternatives imposed upon them” (p. 222). Nevertheless, Ramoglou (2021a) showed how the Discovery view depends on a number of achievement verbs (e.g., the very word discover) that implicitly attribute extraordinary abilities to entrepreneurs, which generate “paradoxical confusions.” (Ramoglou, 2021a: 7). Specifically, such achievement verbs tend to attribute, to entrepreneurs, knowledge about the future state of the world, which at the same time is represented as unknowable (Ramoglou, 2021a).

The opposing view is that entrepreneurs do not discover preexisting potentials, but they create these potentials (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; 2013; 2010). Through their actions, entrepreneurs make new things come into existence out of nothing. For example, by reframing farmland that others consider a liability because it is riddled with poisonous methane gas into a source of electricity generation, a farmer can “create something from nothing” (Baker & Nelson, 2005: 329). According to this view, it is the entrepreneurs who create opportunities by thinking differently and making the rest of us do so too.

The Discovery view would say that a successful venture shows that an opportunity was there all along, and that the entrepreneur had indeed discovered it and turned it from a probability to a certainty. The Creation view would say that the opportunity comes into existence with the successful venture, which conflicts with the common understanding that opportunities are not certainties but potentialities (Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022). Thus, while the Discovery view implies that entrepreneurs know the future before it is realized, the Creation view conflates the actual with the potential. An inherent practical issue with each of these views is that they are based on the notion that opportunities can only be conclusively known post hoc after the new economic activity has come into existence (Davidsson, 2023; Ramoglou, 2021a).

3 The Quantum view of opportunity

Quantum theory has recently entered organization science as a new lens to explain human cognition and judgment (Bruza et al., 2015; Busemeyer & Bruza, 2012; Busemeyer et al., 2011) and to understand organizational phenomena such as paradox (Hahn & Knight, 2021; Li, 2021), organizational change (Lord et al., 2015), and sustainability (Dyck & Greidanus, 2017). Quantum theory fundamentally altered the classical positivism that any characterization (i.e., empirical measurement) corresponds to the preexisting physical reality of Newtonian physics, which has served as an underpinning premise across social sciences (Barad, 2007). In contrast, quantum mechanics view the world as inherently probabilistic, in that “all we can know about reality is the probability of experiencing a specific instantiation of it” (Hahn & Knight, 2021: 368); therefore, ontology and epistemology are fundamentally inseparable (Barad, 2007). This novel ontological and epistemological view (Barad, 2007), that we label the Quantum view, differs from either representationalism or constructionism and presents an alternative lens to understand social phenomena (Hahn & Knight, 2021).

The quantum theory presents one of the most fundamental scientific frameworks on “what we can and cannot know and say about physical reality” (Hahn & Knight, 2021: 367). Over a century, quantum theory has evolved to be arguably the most dominant theoretical framework in physics, and it has offered a new philosophical framework with distinct premises to understand social sciences—see Barad (2007) and Ball (2018) for some introductions, reviews, and implications of the quantum theory for social sciences. Here, we use the philosophical framework from quantum theory to provide a view on entrepreneurial opportunity. Like existing work that applies quantum theory in organization sciences (c.f. Hahn & Knight, 2021; Lord et al., 2015), we do not claim that the social world behaves in the same manner as the physical world; instead, we conjecture that it is worthwhile to know how the ontology and epistemology of the physical world put forward by the quantum theory can shed light on the ontology and epistemology of entrepreneurial opportunity in the social world, much like how social scientists borrow from the ontology and epistemology of the physical world throughout the scientific history.

As illustrated in the previous section, the core disagreement between the Discovery and Creation views concerns whether entrepreneurial opportunities exist “out there” to be discovered or do not exist before entrepreneurs’ actions (Barad, 2007: 185). In contrast, the Quantum view contends that the world is innately probabilistic and is instantiated by measurement or characterization. The Quantum view suggests, on the one hand, that opportunity is objective and exists as latent states irrespective of entrepreneurs, and on the other hand, that the latent states present only indeterminate probability and are realized through selective enactment. Such a view offers an alternative conceptualization of entrepreneurial opportunity by explaining how ideas from both the Discovery and Creation views mutually account for its dual nature ontologically and epistemologically.

3.1 The latent states before characterization of an object

The duality principle in quantum mechanics describes the wave-particle duality of objects, which suggests that every particle can be conceptualized as either a wave or a particle. As noted by Einstein and Infeld (1966:263): “There seems no likelihood of forming a consistent description of the phenomenon of light by choice of only one of the two possible languages. It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either.” The wave-particle duality was best demonstrated through the famous double-slit experiment, in which light exhibits particle- or wave-like behaviors subject to the specific characterization in terms of the measurement and apparatus deployed. Before characterization, one cannot definitively describe the nature of an object. Instead, the object exists in a state of simultaneous potentiality, with various probabilistic and indeterminate states (Dirac, 1981). This latent world can be described by the wave function of an object in terms of the different probabilistic states in a certain momentum or at a certain place (Griffiths, 2005). While both quantum theory and Newtonian theory hold that the world exists “out there” (Barad, 2007: 185), the two theories view the way it objectively exists differently: Quantum theory views the world not as deterministic states as in Newtonian theory, but as indeterminate and probabilistic states.

The metaphor of Schrödinger’s cat serves to further illustrate the intricate entwinement of physical reality (matter) and its interpretation or significance (meaning) (Barad, 2007: 165), reflecting the concept that the observer’s measurement affects the observed phenomenon. This metaphor, originating from a thought experiment that posits a scenario where a cat, placed within a box, exists in a simultaneous state of being both alive and dead, a condition that remains unresolved until the moment of observation. Following this principle, we contend that before characterization, opportunity exists latently in terms of indeterminate probability, irrespective of their recognition. Latency captures the indeterminate probability of various means-end relationships, which have yet to be but can be enacted to become new economic activities. Opportunities before any characterization simultaneously “hold the potentiality of different possible, but indeterminate states” (Hahn & Knight, 2021: 369, 370). Hence, opportunity means potentiality with three natures: objective, probabilistic, and indeterminate. An opportunity may be defined as the potential of building a new means-end relationship in a socio-material context. Hence, opportunity can result from the change of means, end, and context. Such a view carries several implications.

First, opportunity exists inherently as probabilistic states, independently of entrepreneurs. Opportunity incorporates problems (end), solutions (means), and changes in business or technological situations (context). Opportunity is thus objective even though we can never fully specify it a priori. Let us consider an example of the opportunity to develop microwave ovens commercially (Tweedie, 2015). When Dr. Percy Spencer was conducting experiments on a magnetron tube in 1945, he found that the chocolate bar in his pocket was molten. Based on this unexpected observation, Dr. Spencer came up with the concept that microwaves, as a type of electromagnetic radiation, can heat food by causing water and fat molecules to vibrate (opportunity stemming from new means). When he put corn in front of the magnetron tube, the corn popped. Thus, Dr. Spencer tested the validity of the concept and confirmed his hunches and revealed the contours of an opportunity to apply the concept to innovate and build a new business. Based on this concept, Dr. Spencer’s company, Raytheon, built the first microwave oven in 1947, weighing over 750 lb and costing $5000, which was sold to restaurants and the military. In 1952, the first home microwave oven came out for $1275. In this example, the molecule-vibrating property of microwave radiation objectively exists independently from human knowledge and provides the potentialities to develop new businesses. Without knowing and building on the molecule-vibrating property of microwave radiation, however creative entrepreneurs might be, they could not create microwave oven businesses. Thus, by investigating probabilistic latent states, entrepreneurs can gain some knowledge about their likelihood of being realized.

Second, just like the probabilistic wave functions of objects in their latency, the opportunity cannot be fully specified but simultaneously holds the potentiality of different possibilities. Individuals in specific situations have varying probabilities of creating specific instantiations based on the same opportunity. In the microwave oven example, the property of microwave radiation in vibrating molecules provided the potential to meet the human need to heat food conveniently. The opportunity could not be fully specified until some entrepreneurs developed a microwave oven and tested it in the market. Furthermore, entrepreneurs created not just a single business opportunity of a microwave oven but a wide array of them, such as garage door openers, keyless entry systems, microwave radio relay networks, radar, and collision avoidance systems (Osepchuk, 1984).

Third, much like objects existing in simultaneous potentialities of different probabilistic and indeterminate states before characterization, opportunities also possess this characteristic before entrepreneurial action. Yet, opportunity does not have a predefined probability; instead, the probability distribution is contingent upon the specific conditions and context. The indeterminate probability of opportunity indicates that it is not just a lack of information that hinders prediction, but that we cannot fully specify opportunities, thus uncertainty always remains (Dyck & Greidanus, 2017). To develop the first microwave oven, Dr. Spencer’s firm, Raytheon, faced technology and market uncertainty associated with this opportunity. For example, while knowing they need to build on the concept of the molecule-vibrating property of microwave radiation, they may not know how to embody it in a physical form nor who their first customers would be among mass market, restaurants, and military, or how much the customers were willing to pay. Nonetheless, they identified these key elements, and the theory of entrepreneurial opportunity can better account for how individuals can assess opportunity space and enact them to create instantiations of the latent possibilities. Notwithstanding that much entrepreneurial action is not based in rational intentionality (Hunt et al., 2022), articles in management using a Quantum view recommend that forecasting and scenario planning are important means (Lord et al., 2015) to help individuals identify potential instantiations and enact them. Although opportunity cannot be fully specified, we can still gain insights into what is possible and what is plausibly unknowable (Ramoglou, 2021a).

3.2 The characterizations that enact an object into reality

Unlike an assessment of a preexisting and deterministic reality in classical physics, in the quantum theory, the characterization of an object using any measurement and apparatus creates an observed physical reality, an artifact of observation from the unobserved, probabilistic states (Barad, 2007; Hahn & Knight, 2021). For instance, different characterizations varied by specific measurements and apparatuses in the double-slit experiment result in different physical realities as the light collapses to either waves or particles. Particularly, a measurement enacts one of an object’s many probabilities to instantiate. The measurement collapses the wave function of the object into a single discrete value, and hence cannot capture the non-measured positions described in the probability wave function (Hahn & Knight, 2021). However, as particles keep passing the double-slit, the wave pattern appears in a shape in which denser areas correspond to higher probabilities and sparse areas to lower probabilities, subject to the probability wave function. Similarly, the thought experiment of Schrödinger’s cat elegantly encapsulates the concept of superposition in quantum theory, demonstrating how outcomes are intrinsically tied to the act of measurement or observation (Barad, 2007).

The probability wave function’s shape changes depending on the specific characterization of measurement and apparatus (Ball, 2018). The quantum explanation is that “probability wave functions describe what can be measured and known” about an object (Hahn & Knight, 2021: 371), and the interaction between the probability wave function of an object and the characterization causes the collapse of the infinite possible states of the single object into a fixed state. A characterization substantiates the unobserved states into actual physical reality through observations, due to “the inseparability of epistemology and ontology in quantum mechanics” and hence constitutes a creation act (Hahn & Knight, 2021: 371).

In the characterization of an object, the apparatus plays a crucial role. Barad (2007: 142) clarifies what apparatuses are and are not: “apparatuses are not mere instruments or devices that can be deployed as neutral probes of the natural world, or determining structures of a social nature, but neither are they merely laboratory instruments or social forces that function in a performative mode. Apparatuses are not merely about us. And they are not merely assemblages that include nonhumans as well as humans. Rather, apparatuses are specific material reconfigurings of the world that do not merely emerge in time but iteratively reconfigure space–time matter as part of the ongoing dynamism of becoming.”

This Quantum view has fundamentally changed how social scientists theorize (e.g., Barad, 2003; Lord et al., 2015), and now, we posit how it can change the view on entrepreneurial opportunity. The quantum theory that the ontology of the world changes based on epistemology in terms of empirical characterization induces a fundamental shift in how we view opportunity. It is impossible to know deterministically how the potentialities of opportunity may become instances of new economic activity (the ontology) without ascertaining the specific characterization (the epistemology). Through characterization, we bring potential states into being in a specific manner, i.e., a selective enactment.

While entrepreneurs must enact opportunity, enactment is an iteratively creative action because opportunity is not readily observable. Just like in the double-slit experiment, a scientist needs to carefully design the experiment in a particular way to illustrate the phenomena. Just like the scientist must creatively design the proper measurement and apparatus so that light can exhibit particle- or wave-like behaviors, entrepreneurs must creatively enact exogenous opportunity with proper technologies and customer needs into different instantiations of new economic activity.

Just like apparatuses as “boundary-making practices that are formative of matter and meaning, productive of, and part of the phenomena produced” (Barad, 2007: 142), entrepreneurial action changes opportunity or the potentiality of states as well. In other words, entrepreneurial enactment itself becomes a part of a new opportunity to produce new business activity. Just like apparatuses “iteratively reconfigure space–time matter as part of the ongoing dynamism of becoming” (Barad, 2007: 142), entrepreneurial enactment iteratively reconfigures technologies and customer needs in a socio-material context as part of the ongoing dynamism of entrepreneurial activities. In this way, entrepreneurial activities become a dynamic process of instantiating reality.

Selective enactment, based on a Quantum view, does not pick predefined physical entities like picking balls from an urn but constitutes a creation act (Barad, 2007). This creative enactment should not be viewed as the recognition of preexisting but previously unnoticed opportunities by the Discovery view, but it plays a creative role by instantiating an indeterminate potentiality. Hence, opportunity is neither deterministic, because the enactment creatively instantiates a specific opportunity, nor arbitrary, as the enactment of opportunity relies on inherent potentialities of latent states. “Selective” denotes that not all potentialities of opportunity will be enacted in a given situation. Some latent potentialities are more likely to be enacted than others. Each enactment makes a precise characterization of opportunity in a concrete socio-material context, implying it excludes other potential, yet non-enacted, potential characterizations at the same time (Hahn & Knight, 2021). Hence, we cannot know everything at once about opportunity in a given context. Furthermore, enactment of opportunity changes the likelihood of that potential to certainty, which in turn has implications for the likelihood of other latent states. Not all potential enactments can exist at once.

Just as a latent object simultaneously holding multiple potentialities can be characterized differently over time, opportunity can be enacted differently in different socio-material contexts. For example, different entrepreneurs have used the same microwave property in vibrating molecules in enacting various instances of new economic activity. Selective enactment depends not only on latent possibilities but also on the specific individuals in socio-material situations that bring them into being. As individuals vary in their perceptions, predispositions, interpretations, and expectations in their socio-material contexts, different individuals may instantiate opportunity differently, and the same individual will enact latent possibilities differently over time. Thus, the enactment of opportunities changes both the opportunity and the actor. Hence, each enactment of opportunity is actor- and situation-specific (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). For example, Shane (2000) documented that when eight sets of entrepreneurs with different prior experience, knowledge, and resources enacted 3D printing technology, they selected different markets and used different ways to serve the markets based on their own resources and capabilities and built different economic activity. Table 1 provides a summary of the propositions of the Quantum view and its research implications.

Table 1 Propositions and implications
Full size table

4 Research implications of the Quantum view

4.1 Synthesis of the Discovery and Creation views

The Quantum view offers an alternative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunity that helps us to reconcile the duality of the Discovery and the Creation views. This Quantum view shares with the Discovery view that opportunity exists independently of entrepreneurs as latent states. Yet, unlike the Discovery view that opportunities wait for entrepreneurs to discover them as is (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000), the Quantum view posits that opportunity only represents the potentialities that can surface in specific situations and cannot be fully specified. The indeterminate potentialities indicate that there is not a single definite opportunity that waits for an entrepreneur to discover as is, explaining why opportunities are seemingly elusive (Dimov, 2011).

This Quantum view also shares some points with the Creation view. Just as a characterization constitutes an enactment by creating an observed physical reality from the unobserved potential states, new economic activity can only come out of latency into being via enactment by an entrepreneur who thus turns opportunity into new economic activity. This enactment specifies an instance of economic activity and thus specifies (turns into certainty) what the creation view would call “an opportunity.” Opportunity is neither predetermined nor arbitrary before enactment. Individual enactment of latent states shapes its probability to come into being, and hence the enactment of different entrepreneurs leads to different realized new economic activity. Yet, this Quantum view differs from the Creation view in that entrepreneurial opportunity is “formed endogenously, by the actions of entrepreneurs themselves” (Alvarez & Barney, 2020: 305). The Quantum view, instead, contends that entrepreneurs enact and realize potential, objective states from the possibility space of opportunity, which in turn changes the possible states. Without objective, exogenous opportunity, entrepreneurs cannot arbitrarily construct any imaginable state endogenously. The creation of new economic activity is governed by both the inherent probability of opportunity and the specific enactment of entrepreneurs.

The Quantum view suggests that opportunities are objective, probabilistic, and indeterminate potentialities that are realized differently by distinct entrepreneurial action, which explains how the Discovery and the Creation views may complement each other. The Quantum view suggests that entrepreneurs enact opportunity from their specific situation, as emphasized in the Creation view, based on the inherent probability of latent means-end relationships, as emphasized in the Discovery view. Hence, the Quantum view sheds new light on the ongoing debate about whether and how opportunity is discovered and/or created and offers an alternative conceptualization of opportunity beyond the Discovery and Creation views. Table 2 offers a stylized comparison of the various views on entrepreneurial opportunity.

Table 2 A stylized juxtaposition of views of entrepreneurial opportunity
Full size table

4.2 The indeterminacy of opportunities

The Quantum view introduces a novel perspective on the nature and essence of entrepreneurial opportunities. In the quantum view, opportunities are not merely static or malleable but exist in a state of objective indeterminacy. Entrepreneurs are neither clairvoyants nor have the power to create mountains out of nothing—they act on latent opportunities (Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). The idea that entrepreneurs can create something out of nothing is problematic if it leads entrepreneurs to disregard reality, as the collapse of Theranos, Three Arrows Capital, Second Uncle Coin, and, recently, FTX have reminded us. While the entrepreneurial spirit is often celebrated for its ingenuity and adaptability, it is crucial to acknowledge that entrepreneurs do not operate in isolation. Their actions and decisions are invariably influenced by the constraints and affordances of their specific environments. Thus, scholarly discourse on entrepreneurial opportunity that does not account for these external conditions might be overlooking a critical dimension of the entrepreneurial process.

While most practical advice to entrepreneurs recognizes that there is a limit to how much one can find out by researching opportunity space (Mansoori & Lackeus, 2020), the quantum view shows why it is impossible to specify opportunity fully even in principle. Opportunity cannot be specified fully because the Quantum view sees opportunity as probabilistic and indeterminate potentials rather than certainties. This does not mean that we can know nothing about opportunity, but rather we can never know it fully until entrepreneurial action realizes it (Ramoglou, 2021a). However, realization changes what states are possible in the future. Thus, the Quantum view stresses that we cannot have full knowledge of opportunities, but we can learn about them. This underlines the importance of dealing with the uncertainty that is inherent in the occurrence of opportunities for practicing entrepreneurs.

4.3 The dynamic enactment of opportunities

The Quantum view underscores the pivotal role of entrepreneurial enactment in the realization of opportunities. Drawing parallels from quantum physics, just as the act of measuring an object using specific apparatus or tools determines its observed reality, entrepreneurs bring latent opportunities to life using their resources influenced by their cognitive frameworks. This perspective tentatively suggests that opportunities, while inherently existing in potential states, may be actualized through the proactive and deliberate actions of entrepreneurs. It reframes the entrepreneurial process from a passive stance—where opportunities are merely discovered—to an active one, where entrepreneurs play a pivotal role in shaping them. This active engagement is not just about exploiting market gaps; it is about co-creating and defining the very essence of opportunities (Karami & Read, 2021).

Drawing a cautious parallel with quantum concepts, like the dynamic nature of space–time-matter referenced by Barad (2007), entrepreneurial activities might be seen as a fluid process, possibly shaping new entrepreneurial realities. The quantum view suggests that opportunities are not static entities but evolve, transform, and adapt based on entrepreneurs’ actions. Such an approach would prioritize the lived experiences, cognitive processes, and strategic choices of entrepreneurs, offering a more granular and authentic understanding of the entrepreneurial journey.

4.4 Actor-specific and situational opportunities

The Quantum view underscores the need for more nuanced, context-specific, and actor-centered research on opportunity (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). The situation-specific nature emphasizes the importance of the external environment in influencing opportunity realization. This suggests that the same opportunity can yield different outcomes depending on where and when it is pursued and by whom. Recognizing that opportunities are shaped by a myriad of contextual factors and the specific actions of individual entrepreneurs, scholars are urged to move beyond broad generalizations and delve into the micro-dynamics, capturing the rich tapestry of factors, decisions, and actions that culminate in opportunity realization.

Consequently, scholars might consider adopting research approaches that are more adaptive and reflective of the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial opportunities. This calls for qualitative, longitudinal studies, and dynamic frameworks that can capture the ever-changing nature of opportunities and the multifaceted processes through which they are realized. In particular, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics posits that the precise position and velocity of a particle cannot be simultaneously determined. Translating this principle to the realm of entrepreneurship research suggests inherent challenges in predicting and understanding the trajectory of entrepreneurial opportunities. Just as quantum entities defy deterministic characterization, we can learn about entrepreneurial opportunities, but we can never specify them fully (Ramoglou, 2021a). Traditional research methodologies, grounded in deterministic paradigms, might be inadequate in capturing the true essence of these dynamic entrepreneurial processes. The inseparability of ontology from epistemology suggests that a shift towards more integrative and system-oriented approaches, moving away from compartmentalized studies. As a result, there is a compelling need to pivot towards research approaches that embrace non-determinism. Such methodologies would be better equipped to model the inherent uncertainties and fluidities of entrepreneurial journey.

The Quantum view stresses the importance of understanding ontology (the nature of reality) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge) in research design because this understanding influences how researchers perceive the phenomena they study, the types of questions they ask, and the methods they use. Methodologically, the Quantum view advocates for methodological pluralism, encouraging researchers to use a variety of methods to gain a more holistic understanding of entrepreneurship and management phenomena. This approach acknowledges that different methods can be complementary and can provide richer insights when combined. Lastly, we encourage researchers to critically examine and challenge their own philosophical assumptions, acknowledging that these can evolve and that openness to different perspectives can enrich research.

5 Discussion

This article has outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the Discovery and Creation views of entrepreneurial opportunity and contrasted them with the Quantum view of opportunity. By building on the practice of transferring insights from quantum physics into the social sciences, the Quantum view offers a new perspective on opportunity. How we think of opportunity has implications for how one understands the causal mechanisms underpinning entrepreneurship, it is, therefore, important that we have mental models that allow us to draw on the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of each of the dominant streams of thinking around the opportunity construct.

The Quantum view of opportunity outlines how opportunity exists independently of entrepreneurs yet does not posit that entrepreneurs know the future. It also acknowledges the important role of entrepreneurial action in instantiating latent possibilities, and it stresses that entrepreneurial action changes opportunity. Because all enactments of the previous latent possibilities provide new information about the opportunity, such enactment also changes the opportunity. Thus, rather than depicting entrepreneurs as those who discover opportunities, the Quantum view suggests that the entrepreneurs and the opportunity interact to instantiate new economic activity and thus change both the entrepreneurs and the opportunity. Thus, not only can we focus on how entrepreneurs create opportunities, but also on how the opportunity creates the entrepreneur.

The Quantum view explains how entrepreneurs act to create new economic activity and change the opportunity without disregarding the importance of external conditions. The Quantum view thus resonates with the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship in that opportunity is expanded by publicly and privately funded research and development (Acs et al., 2009, 2013; Audretsch & Link, 2019) and it also resonates with those who stress the importance of the institutional context (Aparicio et al., 2016; Urbano et al., 2019). That is, policy makers need to consider the cultivation of the orchard (Winter, 2016), not just the number of entrepreneurs (Shane, 2009), for entrepreneurship to be productive (Baumol, 1996). However, the acts of entrepreneurs also change the orchard. That is, as entrepreneurs enact opportunity, the nature of and what we know about opportunity changes.

The Quantum view construes opportunity in a way that suggests that entrepreneurs are neither clairvoyants nor have the power to create mountains out of nothing. Rather, policy makers need to be mindful that substantial “environmental changes—be they technological, regulatory, demographic, sociocultural, or otherwise” influence what is possible (Kimjeon & Davidsson, 2022), thus opportunities. However, the Quantum view also explains why entrepreneurs can neither seize preexisting opportunities, like picking fruit in an orchard, nor fully specify opportunities by researching and planning.

The Quantum view also emphasizes the socio-material context that shapes a potential to enact opportunity, and policy makers can thereby facilitate entrepreneurs’ actions on opportunity by devising policies to shape this socio-material context (Knight & Hahn, 2021; Urbano et al., 2019). Since the socio-material context comprises socio-discursive, cognitive, and material aspects, future research should explore how entrepreneurs enact opportunity from different perspectives and how policy makers can help them in those aspects. Importantly, research has clearly taken a turn towards recognizing the institutional context that shapes entrepreneurship and the opportunity space that determines whether or not it creates value in society (Baumol, 1996; Lundmark & Westelius, 2019; Urbano et al., 2019).

Like the Discovery and Creation views, the Quantum view is meant not as a formal theoretical model but offers a thought-provoking viewpoint for probing the ontological and epistemological foundations to better ground our theorizing on opportunity. In many respects, the Quantum view of opportunity resonates with how entrepreneurs talk about opportunities in practice (Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022: 4), that is to “express confidence that a desirable world-state A can actualize, following course of action B, when the necessary conditions C are believed to exist.” The Quantum view draws on quantum physics to help us move beyond the Discovery and Creation views by presenting another metaphor by which we can help break the mold. While both Discovery and Creation views can agree that some entrepreneurial activity actualizes new economic activity as that is easily observable, we need new analogies to help us break out of existing conceptualizations of opportunity. In line with recent calls (Ramoglou & McMullen, 2022), the Quantum view draws on quantum theory to offer a model of how we can fruitfully think about opportunity that captures the strengths of each of the Discovery and Creation views while minimizing their weaknesses. A new analogy is a more effective way of breaking out of the mold of ingrained thinking than a critique that simply lays out the flaws in previous thinking because even negation can strengthen ingrained thinking (Lakoff, 2004). Because analogical and metaphorical thinking is central to how people make sense of the world (Hofstadter, 2001; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lundmark et al., 2019), we suggest that, similar to how quantum mechanics move beyond the particle-wave distinction, the Quantum view is a helpful way to move beyond the Discovery and Creation views of opportunity to further our understanding of entrepreneurship.